Jump to content

User talk:Sandman888

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 188.55.83.30 (talk) at 07:41, 1 September 2010 (→‎The Quadruple: ??). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

There is no Cabal

Question

Hi. Thanks for your second opinion on flag of convenience. I'm not sure what your statement: "I concur with your dealings here from what I've read." means. Could you clarify that for me? Thanks again. HausTalk 09:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks! HausTalk 09:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Sandman888. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Peer review/Petitcodiac River/archive1.
Message added 02:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DYK for FC Barcelona Museum

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

GA review

I'll respectfully decline to do the GA review of History of FC Barcelona mainly because I think the best articles come out of multiple reviews by multiple reviewers. FAC is different from GAN in that GAN relies on a single reviewer. Since I did the PR, I don't think that single reviewer should be me. I think your chances of getting History of FC Barcelona up to GA are pretty good. Best of luck with it. Finetooth (talk) 16:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gamper

Hey Sandman888, you're doing a great job on this list. Just wanted to let you know I reworked a tiny bit of the lead, if you don't like it, of course, revert but I thought it needed doing since you included a new sentence at the beginning of the lead. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Thanks for the review, it was very helpful. Don't worry about me adding to the backlog, I like doing one at the time so it'll be a while before I consider nominating another. I'll think about doing a review but I'm a novice when it comes to that sort of thing. The Joan Gamper Trophy FLC for instance, I missed quite a few things regarding the lead that others didn't. Cheers. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 18:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm not worried about you, however when one adds 40 it really bogs down the process. Regarding FLC, it's way closer to FAC than GAN, FL is actually just like FA apart from image review (luckily) and softer source criticism. I actually reviewed my first GA a week ago. Sandman888 (talk) 18:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trimaran Capital Partners GAN

Hi - Wasn't sure from your write-up whether you thought the refs were the biggest issue on the GA nomination. I did some cleanup on that as suggested. It is not really "my" article - I thought it had good potential and tried to get it up to GA. I came to it from the same place as you but not sure what else there is to add. I would have added more about the firm's operations but could not find much other than history and investment funds. Let me know what you think about it now|► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 21:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References are still an issue, see GAN. Sandman888 (talk) 21:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure if you are talking about the coverage or the format of the refs. I am not going to put the refs into cite. I don't use that template. If you are talking about coverage, I have made some other attempts at further referencing but this is about as much as I think I can do. There is one unsourced statement about all of the private equity firms they worked with. You can delete that if you feel that makes the difference. Thanks for the help|► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 23:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • First of all the standard is that the article "provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;[2] and (c) it contains no original research." I have added a few more refs but am now officially done. If you won't pass it then just say so. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 12:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Aerial bombardment of Barcelona

Not helpful. The discussion was pertinent and unconcluded. The title you chose was also a little unnecessary. J Milburn (talk) 10:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Barcelona bombing.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Barcelona bombing.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --J Milburn (talk) 18:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William H. Prescott - peer review.

I've left some comments at the peer review concerning improvements I've made to the article. Thanks. Claritas § 08:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review conclusion

Look, I don't want ot spend more time arguing with you. I think in general this is a well written, verifiable, stable, referenced article.

I have failed your nomination due to reference issues. As I said, you must provide a reference for every section. By doing a courtesy check of the first couple of referenced facts I found the following:

[5] does not back up the prose at all, no mention of Argosy.

- Does talk about the principals coming out of Drexel

[6] makes no mention of Argosy.

- This talks about the principals and the deals they did at Drexel which is what the text is talking about

[7] makes no mention of Argosy

- Does in fact make reference to Argosy as a high yield boutique

[8] has accessdate but no URL.

- I added the access date in reference to the fact that I acccessed this article on Factiva. I guess you can put a link but not sure how you can

Which makes everything written in this article very susceptible. You are of course welcome to bring it up to review if you believe that this is unfair.

Susceptible to what? I think I will put it up for review. You seemed very hung up when the fact is that the article is highly referenced including every item that might be controversial. I was also disappointed with the quality of your review which was much less extensive than the other GA's I have gone through. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 11:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

El Clásico

As for your comment, I haven't inserted any list, I've just recovered a list which you deleted and which is relevant and looks basicly reliable. As for the citation, use the Cn template if you don't trust what is written. As for the flags, take them out if you don't like them but not the information to which they are attached.

Most important, many of your contributions to El Clásico look positive, but some don't. I've been watching this page for quite a long time and it seems to attract arrogant editors who don't like to discuss their changes in a reasonable way. I hope you are not like them. The article is potentially conflictive and changing some key statements shouldn't be done without consensus. --Jotamar (talk) 23:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Culers.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Culers.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:FCB second crest.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:FCB second crest.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog

Dear Sandman888, the peer review backlog has a fixed format and procedure for adding items, which you are not following. We wait until PRs are at least 4 days old and have not received any substantial comments. The date a PR starts is determined by the date in the PR itself (in bold at the bottom at wp:pr/d). Right now, there is no official backlog as there are no PRs at least 4 days old without comments. While I understand your desire to have your PR request reviewed, please do not keep adding it or the Mario Cart article PR to the backlog prematurely (and please do not link to the article instead of the PR, and please do not change dates). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 10:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • From the Mario Cart PR: "Cheers, CarterRodriguez 4:18 am, 26 August 2010, last Thursday (6 days ago) (UTC+2)"
  • From el clasico "Cheerio, Sandman888 (talk) 12:21 pm, 27 August 2010, last Friday (5 days ago)"

DYK for Boixos Nois

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your unwarranted warning message

Hello, Sandman888. You have new messages at Juwe's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

August 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Tuples in association football. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. The honors you added was accomplished across two seasons (2008–09 & 2009–10) not in one season as you wrote. Thank you. 188.48.15.147 (talk) 21:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Quadruple

See Talk:Tuples in association football#The Quadruple to know more about your unproven reason.--188.55.83.30 (talk) 07:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source didn't say Barcelona did that at same season, we can read and references aren't just a decorations.--188.55.83.30 (talk) 07:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reference clearly says it's a sextuple, so that's what written. Sandman888 (talk) 07:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand me, I mean what you add at The Quadruple section not the sextuple.--188.55.83.30 (talk) 07:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sandman888&oldid=382238036"